It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For creationnists that take the bible literaly

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Do you also take these verses literaly?


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


The heaven here is obviously the sky, what about space and the rest of the universe?


1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Light appeared before the stars.


1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Where is this firmament now? We went into space many times and there is none. There is also no water above the sky.


1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Evidence the people that wrote genesis never heard of continental plates.


1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.


Vegetation is made before the sun or the stars. Photosynthesis anyone? Of course the people who wrote this never heard of it.


1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.


So all the stars are supposed to be lights fixed just above the flat earth in the firmament. The world god made was actually quite small, a flat earth and a firmament over it, and that's it. Which is inconsistent with reality.


1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


The moon is not a light, but obviously at the time no one could have known better.



I hear people saying that the bible is much better than science at explaining the world, and I fail to see how they expect rational people to take them seriously.


[edit on 3-8-2007 by DarkSide]




posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Darkside, I do not take the Bible literally. I see that Divine Revelations heavily use metaphor, allegory and parables as means of educating our sophisticated technological society instead of the agrarian population that first received the message.

However, let's be honest here, the people of the time would have definitely related photosynthesis to sunlight allowing their plants to grow. The passage should be read as a general introduction without a strict sequence of events.

As for your other points, I will leave them to others with greater knowledge - not a cop-out but I do not have sufficient knowledge to address them.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I see that Divine Revelations heavily use metaphor, allegory and parables as means of educating our sophisticated technological society instead of the agrarian population that first received the message.


That can be said about the parables of the new testament, but not the verses of Genesis I quoted. They genuinly believed the Earth was flat and lied under a firmament which had inbuilt "spotlights". Just like the people that believed the Earth lied on the top of a giant tortoise shell.


However, let's be honest here, the people of the time would have definitely related photosynthesis to sunlight allowing their plants to grow. The passage should be read as a general introduction without a strict sequence of events.


They would not know about photosynthesis. They would know by observation that a plant would need sunlight but that's about it.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
DS, The Bible was written two hundred years or so after the Crucifixion. Obviously there will be problems with the transcription of text and the sequencing of information.

However, I see that people who believe EVERY word as literal truth have not given an answer. I urge them to see the Bible as a book of allegory and metaphor.

Irrelevant of the scientific inaccuracy, the ehical parts of this book have inspired billions over the world to lead ethical and upright lives. Can you say the same for acolytes of Darwin and Dawkins?

Finally, I meant that the people to whom the Bible was revealed knew that the sun was needed for plant growth. They obviously knew that plants without sunlight would have died.

I think EVERY believer should look into his faith and question it with people of scientific knowledge until his/her curiosity is satisfied. ID has a partial answer but more appealing are the theories of Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis and the Orch OR model for consciousness. Watch this space...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think the bible is better to be taken metaphorically than literally. These passages in the bible are not to be taken literally but are describing what really happened in a way that people throughout the ages would understand.

That's just my opinion and unbiased as I am not religious nor do i believe in the scientific theory.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   




You're not that smart, are you?

Are stars the only source of Light?

Think about it.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Sorry to be ignorant but what else makes light other than the stars? Oh and Fire.


[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 7-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Come on man, candles make light, we have electricity and Light bulbs that produce light.

Firefly's produce light, the list goes on and on.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Yeh ok but back in the beginning how many candles were around? When exactly was electricity discovered? I wouldn't class fireflies as a source of light in the sense that you couldnt find your way through a pitch black forest with one.

As i have said i don't believe the bible myself but we are talking about the beginning here.. before humans even.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
That's not the point, the point is light is not unique to stars only.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Thats EXACTLY the point! We are talking about creationism and none of the above that you mentioned were there at the beginning. We have made light artificially and through fire, which I acknowledged would have been the only other source of light at 'the beginning'.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by fiftyfifty]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don't understand what you are getting at. I already proved my point that light is not unique to stars.

Darkside made his post sound as if stars are the only source of light, when in fact they are not.

So therefore, light could have existed before stars.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
alright, what else could illuminate an ENTIRE PLANET. stars are the only things bright enough to do so.



[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 7-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
What's your point?

The point I'm proving is that light does not exist because of stars.

There's nothing to argue about there.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
You are right that there is not argument in that statement. However the OP was referring to the 'first light' and I am pretty certain that by that, we are not talking about the 'first candle' or 'first bonfire'.

Before artificial light was created the ONLY light on the planet would have been from, the sun, other stars. and volcanic/ fire sources. The MAIN light on the planet is the Sun and life on the planet depends on it. This, I believe is what the bible is referring to.



[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 7-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

DS, The Bible was written two hundred years or so after the Crucifixion. Obviously there will be problems with the transcription of text and the sequencing of information.


Yes but why would an omnipotent being allow this to happen? It's people that decided what texts would be integrated into the bible and which ones would not.


Irrelevant of the scientific inaccuracy, the ehical parts of this book have inspired billions over the world to lead ethical and upright lives. Can you say the same for acolytes of Darwin and Dawkins?


I'm not putting the ethical teachings into doubt, but what about Darwin and Dawkins? They are not spiritual teachers. In any case horrible things have been done throughout history by believers and non-believers alike.


Finally, I meant that the people to whom the Bible was revealed knew that the sun was needed for plant growth. They obviously knew that plants without sunlight would have died.


I hope so. Agriculture was already millenia old at the time.


the theories of Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis and the Orch OR model for consciousness


Never heard of them, I'll look them up



You're not that smart, are you?

Are stars the only source of Light?

Think about it.



Darkside made his post sound as if stars are the only source of light, when in fact they are not.


Well done for figuring that one out, I guess you want a nobel prize now?

Now, "thehumbleone", what's the main light source in space or even for a planet? (tip: it's not candles or even flashlights)





[edit on 7-8-2007 by DarkSide]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I believe the bible was put together very cleverly, from older scriptures.
I do not take the bible literally, however I do follow the 10 commandments.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join